Bayes Theorem: Key to the Universe, Richard Carrier Skepticon 4

Please subscribe.

During filming, if a powerpoint slide is just a reiteration of what the speaker is saying, without any new information, I do not cut to it. If you are screaming, "What the fuck is on the projector!"... This is the answer.

All Skepticon videos will be monetized this year with ads. 100% of the proceeds with be used to purchase micro-loans through Kiva.org.

I know the ads are annoying, but there is no reason to not use the money for a good cause.

Category:

Entertainment

Tags:

• richard
• Carrier
• skepticon
• hambone
• productions
• bayes
• theorom
• atheist
• there
• is
• no
• god
• proof
• ssa
• humanist
• jeff
• foxworthy
• Atheism
• Darwin
• Dawkins
• Creationism
• Design
• Humanism
• Intelligent
• Truth

[comegetthis2]

What happened to the Q&A section? Previous years skepticon videos had them..

[HamboneProductions]

@comegetthis2 We made the time slots shorter this year to make sure everything ran smoother. Speakers still had the option to take questions but most of the ran long on the speeches and didn't have time remaining. Skepticon is so laid back that if you have a question for a speaker, it's very easy to approach them during the conference and have it answered in person, so the Q and A aren't that necessary.

Thanks for watching.

[jacobreinvented]

If we take the number of religious people that will be willing to devote the time and effort necessary to understand this, and of those the percent capable of understanding it, and of those the percent who when they do understand it don't simply ignore it we come up with a number so low as to be practically zero. So this may not be a useful arguing tool.

[gtechatheist]

Atheist engineer here, but in reference to the equation at 44:52. The terms labeled P(God exists) and P(No God) are complements and must sum to 1 since they are the only two possibilities in that sample space. However, .75 and 0.5 clearly do not add to 1. The correction doesn't change the calculation much, as his result relies on the assumption that humans speak out against slavery and so should benevolent deities, but still he should get this right if he wrote a whole book about it.

[MrShysterme]

@jacobreinvented See William L. Craig's misuse of bayes in his debate with Ehrman. It was horrible to watch.

[TheBowsersMario]

@stallion4life Loving, knowing, just? These all sound like pretty human qualities to me. Seems like your God does act human, except when it isn't convenient for you.

[kayosiiii]

Got a scientology advert with this clip -- I have to say that this is quite ironic

[ShrodingerFu]

@stallion4life The argument is that that if your god(whichever on you might propose) gives a shit about the human race, and is all powerful, the likelihood that it would have a reasonable argument against speaking out are miniscule to the point that it's existence becomes improbable. We as mere humans, would be moved to change things for the better, given a position to do so. Maybe God does know something we don't that has caused it to act as it does. It's still wildly improbable.

[Brianchse]

@stallion4life Why is is bullshit? Explain please?

[stallion4life]

I love his bullshit quantifications of probabilities. His entire argument is that God would always behave exactly as a person would?